Quote:
NTJedi said:
The more unrest the less likely your hunters will find blood slaves... and three low level blood hunters can easily raise unrest into the teens with one turn.
|
Theyn might be able to, but with 0 taxes it will take a few turns usually. Even at 20% unrest, that's just a 20% chance of failure. 4 out of 5 turns the province will produce normally. Avoiding micromanagement is done by not trying to optimize every possible thing.
Quote:
In the perfect non-walgreens world bloodhunters will supply their own blood slaves every turn. Since they do not find blood slaves every turn I see it's important to give them 2 or 3 blood slaves.
|
Blood hunters in a proper hunting province will succeed 90% of the time. With three hunters, you are almost certain to have some success, and as stated, those three hunters will either be enough of a defense, as they are against small attacks, or will be hopelessly defeated.
Quote:
Unlike your experiences I've had CLOSE magic casted battles from Call of the Wild and even the Madmen... and without blood slaves for each of my mages the result would have resulted in a loss for me.
|
If your opponent is spending gems on call of the wild, you will win the resources war fairly simply.
Quote:
In some of the more recent games I've played we agree to only building a fixed amount of castles which causes players to use castle-types more efficiently and strategically instead of watching most people jump into mass-castle building. As a result the hunters are not always behind castles.
|
That's a problem with the house rules you chose, not the game itself.
Quote:
Yes this is one strategy and to supply those priests one hunter will be needed per temple. And managing the unrest for those hunting provinces is the extra management. On large maps a player will definitely notice this.
|
You will be managing the unrest every five turns or so anyways.